Thank you for the clarification.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the board's statistics speak for themselves. Since it was established in 2000, regardless of the membership of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board, an average of 40% of the cases that have been referred to the board over a 10-year period have produced positive recommendations for the complainants. In other words, the board's recommendations were in favour of the complainants. To be more specific, last year alone, the board's recommendations went in favour of members in 45% of the cases the board considered.
If we want to go a little further, regardless of the board's recommendations, whether they are in favour of the members or of the original decision, the Chief of the Defence Staff has agreed to 90% of the board's recommendations.
It's true that, on the one hand, there may always be a certain perception that the board members are related to the military field, but that's a perception. In my view, military service does not lead to an absence of neutrality. The fact that a board member has served in the Canadian Forces cannot mean an absence of neutrality on his or her part. I prefer to observe the statistics and to note that, historically, the decisions have been half in favour of complainants and half against them. Last year, the percentages were 45% and 55% respectively. We also note the weight or importance that the Chief of Staff attaches to the board's work: he concurs its decisions in 90% of cases. As for the 10% of decisions in which he does not concur, that's often as a result of a matter of interpretation or discretion on his part.